FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25065

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Do not fund unless adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns that the technique is not sufficiently integrated with other work in the subbasin. This proposal is to monitor and evaluate water temperatures in streams needed to develop temperature regulations in three rivers of Southeast Washington, using primarily infrared imagery from airborne over-flights. However, the proposal lacks sufficient information to be persuasive that it deserves funding in competition with other worthwhile projects. The presentation did not provide a thorough explanation of what the project could provide for actual data relevant to fish management.

The information to be gained from this project is likely to provide additional insight into dynamics of stream temperature and relations to the surrounding landscape. This type of temperature monitoring is key to impact assessments into the future. The broad spatial scale could potentially coordinate much of the on-the-ground temperature data collected by others. The methods are limited, however, because the imagery results only will reflect stream surface temperature, and it produces only a snapshot of conditions at the time the records are made. The technology can be appropriately applied to specific questions concerning water temperature dynamics troubling on-the-ground managers of the watershed restoration efforts, but these questions are not clearly identified.

Neither the proposal nor the presentation was persuasive. The authors essentially need to rewrite their rather weak proposal with a focus on how this work may benefit efforts at salmonid restoration (the proposal states that the relationship to other projects is not applicable!). The case is not made adequately that high water temperatures are a problem in the rivers, although they probably are. No temperature data are provided from previous studies. Only statements from the Subbasin Summary are given as evidence of the need for the work (maybe this is believed sufficient, but the ISRP believes the proposal needs more direct information). The objectives are not clear. In Part 1, the objectives listed are actually tasks, and the accomplishments expected from the study are not given adequately. Even in the final sections of the narrative, there are just ambiguous statements that the data "can be used" for maps of temperature in the watershed, without saying if the point of the study is to make such maps. What we get from the study besides raw data from the fly-overs is not clear. The abstract is too long, and actually goes into background information better given in the background section. The background section is brief, and does not give information on what the cited studies found. The previous (and cited) infrared imagery research on nearby rivers has actually been very revealing, but this proposal does not use those results to bolster its case for more such study. As pointed out in discussion during the presentation, winter imagery (not proposed) can be useful for detecting groundwater inflows, because they are warmer in winter and they rise to the surface and are detected readily (in summer, they are cooler and sink and do not show up until the stream mixes farther downstream). Incidentally, infrared imagery for water temperature mapping is not new, having been used in the PNW in the 1960s (many improvements since then, though, that were amplified in the presentation).

Background on the temperatures in the study locations in relation to temperature requirements of fish would have been useful and would have helped support the need for the project. Rationale is given for the project from the standpoint of the Subbasin Summary, but there is no mention of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (that most directly determines funding for the work) or the NMFS BiOp. The proposal shows no evidence that the proposers are aware of other relevant BPA-funded projects related to fish and their habitat requirements in the vicinity that might use the results of this study. There is a good narrative on tasks and methods but objectives (outcomes) are not outlined. The facilities and equipment section continues the narrative on tasks without describing any facilities or equipment. Staff resumes are not provided. Costs are high for an established technique and one flight. There is no cost sharing, although the WA Ecology has been doing similar work elsewhere, and it or EPA would seem to be logical co-funders. Is interest/cost sharing possible from climate change working groups? Cannot this approach be combined with the MASS2 (project number 25049) models for a more comprehensive understanding of stream flow and temperature problems in this area?

In summary, this could be useful work with benefit to fish and fundable if the project outcomes were clarified and other supportive information provided. The proposal needs to show better coordination with other projects. What are the plans to take this project's product and use to inform on-the-ground decisions and actions?

Comment:

Comment:

This proposal is to monitor and evaluate water temperatures in streams needed to develop temperature regulations in three rivers of Southeast Washington, using primarily infrared imagery from airborne over-flights. However, the proposal lacks sufficient information to be persuasive that it deserves funding in competition with other worthwhile projects. The presentation did not provide a thorough explanation of what the project could uniquely provide for actual data relevant to fish management.

The information to be gained from this project is likely to provide additional insight into dynamics of stream temperature and relations to the surrounding landscape. This type of temperature monitoring could be key to impact assessments into the future. The broad spatial scale could potentially coordinate much of the on-the-ground temperature data collected by others. The methods are limited, however, because the imagery results only will reflect stream surface temperature, and it produces only a snapshot of conditions at the time the records are made. That snapshot needs to be carefully integrated with in situ temperature measurements (now easier to do with inexpensive, miniature recorders) and the temperature requirements of fish. The technology can be appropriately applied to specific questions concerning water temperature dynamics troubling on-the-ground managers of the watershed restoration efforts, but these questions are not clearly identified.

The ISRP reviewers were not persuaded by the combination of proposal, presentation, and response. Project sponsors provided considerable discussion in response to ISRP concerns. The response did not, however, provide arguments to overcome the reviewers initial concerns that the focus was on use of a technology rather than viewing the technology as a valuable component of an integrated study of a problem (temperature) important to fish. There is value to the data to be obtained, but in comparison to other needs it may be relatively low. Although the character of the data to be obtained remains unclear, it could help to identify temperature problems that presently are unknown, and it definitely has potential to show stakeholders the location and magnitude of potential temperature problems in these systems. The detailed response provided little to suggest that this project would add to useful information on limits to salmonid production in this watershed that is not already known (or should be readily identified in a watershed assessment process). If increasing temperatures due to climate change become (more of) an issue, perhaps the federal government should support this level of monitoring. The questions on how this information (rather than other temperature data more easily obtained) could be used on the ground, with examples, were not adequately addressed.

On the plus side, the response put the scope of the FLIR work into context much better than the original proposal. Clearer objectives and tasks were given. Temperature problems in the basin in relation to fish thermal requirements were described by a cooperator, Glenn Mendel of WDFW. The utility of the data collection for TMDL activities as well as fish management was described. Temperature data were provided. Elements of the work, including the budget, were clarified as including more than just infra-red overflights and providing data. The response included a listing of related projects. Resumes were provided. It is clear that there is cost share with other programs of Washington DOE. The project could be an important element of an overall program to manage the landscape to reduce water temperatures for salmonids in the lower reaches of the subject waters, and later for other waters of the Columbia Plateau. The added winter imagery, which came up in the oral presentation, is probably best deferred until the summer patterns become clearer and the need for identifying specific groundwater input is more defined.

The ISRP's initial comments that the authors essentially need to rewrite their proposal with a focus on how this work may benefit efforts at salmonid restoration still stands. The ISRP still has concerns that the technique is not sufficiently integrated with other work in the subbasin. In summary, this could be useful work with benefit to fish and fundable if the project would show better coordination with other projects or the technology were more fully integrated into other projects.

Comment:

Comments
Water temp problems in WW are related to low flows, not additive sources. Project as proposed seems geared at identifying additive sources

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Comment: